Looking at the optimistic renderings (especially the clean lines of the currently-in-the-lead zeppelins) brings to mind one of my biggest frustrations with visionary architecture: The persistent gap between the artist’s rendering and the reality that will inevitably follow.

Consider this list of 7 urban freeways with their dingy “before” photos and the lovingly rendered “after” images in water colours and computer graphics. All of them from a vantage point that no human – who is not in a low-flying plane – will ever see.

What would architecture look like if RFPs only allowed eye-level views of the building? No birds-eye shots, no models.

When the Catholic Church decides whether to canonize someone, part of the process involves the devil’s advocate who applies due skepticism to the candidate. I would love to see an architectural contest that had devil’s advocate entries. A 2-part contest.

Re-burbia part 2 – De-burbia

Part 1 is held like normal. People submit their starry-eyed ideas, hopefully with some sense of how possible the details might be. Three winners are chosen. Then, in part 2, we release the cynics.

I want to see independent special effects teams aging the proposals 20 years. Putting them through neglect, weather, budget cuts, and all the other insults that happen to a building. Taking the renderings and redoing them on a cold rainy day in November. Covering them in posters and billboards and graffiti.

“In Fig. 1 we ignore the naive assumption that the flower beds will be maintained. We’ve imagined a likely configuration of weeds.